Cost effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination programs for elementary and secondary school children.

BackgroundStudies have noted variations in the cost-effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV), but little is known about how SLIV's cost-effectiveness may vary by targeted age group (e.g., elementary or secondary school students), or vaccine consent process (paper-based or web-based). Further, SLIV's cost-effectiveness may be impacted by its spillover effect on practice-based vaccination; prior studies have not addressed this issue.MethodsWe performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on two SLIV programs in upstate New York in 2015-2016: (a) elementary school SLIV using a stepped wedge design with schools as clusters (24 suburban and 18 urban schools) and (b) secondary school SLIV using a cluster randomized trial (16 suburban and 4 urban schools). The cost-per-additionally-vaccinated child (i.e., incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)) was estimated by dividing the incremental SLIV intervention cost by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the additional number of vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools). We performed deterministic analyses, one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic analyses.ResultsThe overall effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 5.7 and 5.5 percentage points higher, respectively, in intervention elementary (52.8%) and secondary schools (48.2%) than grade-matched control schools. SLIV programs vaccinated a small proportion of children in intervention elementary (5.2%) and secondary schools (2.5%). In elementary and secondary schools, the ICER excluding vaccine purchase was $85.71 and$86.51 per-additionally-vaccinated-child, respectively. When additionally accounting for observed spillover impact on practice-based vaccination, the ICER decreased to $80.53 in elementary schools -- decreasing substantially in secondary schools. (to$53.40). These estimates were higher than the published practice-based vaccination cost (median = $25.50, mean =$45.48). Also, these estimates were higher than our 2009-2011 urban SLIV program mean costs ($65) due to additional costs for use of a new web-based consent system ($12.97 per-additionally-vaccinated-child) and higher project coordination costs in 2015-2016. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that ICER estimates were most sensitive to the SLIV effectiveness.ConclusionsSLIV raises vaccination rates and may increase practice-based vaccination in primary care practices. While these SLIV programs are effective, to be as cost-effective as practice-based vaccination our SLIV programs would need to vaccinate more students and/or lower the costs for consent systems and project coordination.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02227186 (August 25, 2014), updated NCT03137667 (May 2, 2017)

Trends in Child Protection and Out-of-Home Care

BackgroundOver the past decades, increased knowledge about childhood abuse and trauma have prompted changes in child welfare policy, and practice that may have affected the out-of-home (OOH) care population. However, little is known about recent national trends in child maltreatment, OOH placement, or characteristics of children in OOH care. The objective of this study was to examine trends in child maltreatment and characteristics of children in OOH care.MethodsWe analyzed 2 federal administrative databases to identify and characterize US children who were maltreated (National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System) or in OOH care (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System). We assessed trends between 2000 and 2010.ResultsThe number of suspected maltreatment cases increased 17% from 2000 to 2010, yet the number of substantiated cases decreased 7% and the number of children in OOH care decreased 25%. Despite the decrease in OOH placements, we found a 19% increase in the number of children who entered OOH care because of maltreatment (vs other causes), a 36% increase in the number of children with multiple (vs single) types of maltreatment, and a 60% increase in the number of children in OOH care identified as emotionally disturbed.ConclusionsFrom 2000 to 2010, fewer suspected cases of maltreatment were substantiated, despite increased investigations, and fewer maltreated children were placed in OOH care. These changes may have led to a smaller but more complex OOH care population with substantial previous trauma and emotional problems

Cost effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination programs for elementary and secondary school children.

BackgroundStudies have noted variations in the cost-effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV), but little is known about how SLIV's cost-effectiveness may vary by targeted age group (e.g., elementary or secondary school students), or vaccine consent process (paper-based or web-based). Further, SLIV's cost-effectiveness may be impacted by its spillover effect on practice-based vaccination; prior studies have not addressed this issue.MethodsWe performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on two SLIV programs in upstate New York in 2015-2016: (a) elementary school SLIV using a stepped wedge design with schools as clusters (24 suburban and 18 urban schools) and (b) secondary school SLIV using a cluster randomized trial (16 suburban and 4 urban schools). The cost-per-additionally-vaccinated child (i.e., incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)) was estimated by dividing the incremental SLIV intervention cost by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the additional number of vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools). We performed deterministic analyses, one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic analyses.ResultsThe overall effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 5.7 and 5.5 percentage points higher, respectively, in intervention elementary (52.8%) and secondary schools (48.2%) than grade-matched control schools. SLIV programs vaccinated a small proportion of children in intervention elementary (5.2%) and secondary schools (2.5%). In elementary and secondary schools, the ICER excluding vaccine purchase was $85.71 and$86.51 per-additionally-vaccinated-child, respectively. When additionally accounting for observed spillover impact on practice-based vaccination, the ICER decreased to $80.53 in elementary schools -- decreasing substantially in secondary schools. (to$53.40). These estimates were higher than the published practice-based vaccination cost (median = $25.50, mean =$45.48). Also, these estimates were higher than our 2009-2011 urban SLIV program mean costs ($65) due to additional costs for use of a new web-based consent system ($12.97 per-additionally-vaccinated-child) and higher project coordination costs in 2015-2016. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that ICER estimates were most sensitive to the SLIV effectiveness.ConclusionsSLIV raises vaccination rates and may increase practice-based vaccination in primary care practices. While these SLIV programs are effective, to be as cost-effective as practice-based vaccination our SLIV programs would need to vaccinate more students and/or lower the costs for consent systems and project coordination.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02227186 (August 25, 2014), updated NCT03137667 (May 2, 2017)

Prevalence and Characteristics of HPV Vaccine Hesitancy Among Parents of Adolescents Across the US

Background: While many clinicians encounter parents or adolescents who refuse HPV vaccine, little is known about the prevalence of hesitancy for HPV vaccine nationally or its association with vaccination. Methods: In April 2019, we surveyed families with adolescents 11-17 years using a national online panel (Knowledge Panel®) as the sampling frame. We assessed the prevalence of HPV vaccine hesitancy with the validated 9-item Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS). We used multivariate analyses to assess demographic factors associated with HPV vaccine hesitancy. We also assessed practical barriers to receipt of HPV vaccine and the relationship between barriers and hesitancy. Finally, we evaluated the association between both HPV vaccine hesitancy and practical barriers on HPV vaccine receipt or refusal. Results: 2,177 parents out of 4,185 sampled (52%) completed the survey, 2,020 qualified (lived with adolescent). Using a VHS cut-off score > 3 out of 5 points, 23% of US parents were hesitant about HPV vaccine. Hesitancy was lower among those with Hispanic ethnicity. At least one out of five parents disagreed that the HPV vaccine is beneficial for their adolescent, that the vaccine is effective, protects against HPV-related cancers, or that they followed their adolescent's health-care provider's recommendation about the vaccine. Many were concerned about vaccine side effects and the novelty of the vaccine. Adolescents living with vaccine-hesitant parents were less than one-third as likely to have received the vaccine (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.24, 0.35) or completed the vaccine series (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.23, 0.36), and were 6-fold more likely to have refused the vaccine because of parental vaccine-related concerns (RR = 6.09, 95% CI = 5.26, 7.04). Most practical barriers were independently associated with vaccine receipt but not with vaccine refusal. Conclusions: HPV vaccine hesitancy is common nationally and strongly related to both under-vaccination and vaccine refusal

Effect of Personalized Messages Sent by a Health System's Patient Portal on Influenza Vaccination Rates: a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BackgroundAdult influenza vaccination rates are low. Tailored patient reminders might raise rates.ObjectiveEvaluate impact of a health system's patient portal reminders: (1) tailored to patient characteristics and (2) incorporating behavioral science strategies, on influenza vaccination rates among adults.DesignPragmatic 6-arm randomized trial across a health system during the 2019-2020 influenza vaccination season. The setting was one large health system-53 adult primary care practices.ParticipantsAll adult patients who used the patient portal within 12 months, stratified by the following: young adults (18-64 years, without diabetes), older adults (≥65 years, without diabetes), and those with diabetes (≥18 years).InterventionsPatients were randomized within strata to either (1) pre-commitment reminder alone (1 message, mid-October), (2) pre-commitment + loss frame messages, (3) pre-commitment + gain frame messages, (4) loss frame messages alone, (5) gain frame messages alone, or (6) standard of care control. Patients in the pre-commitment group were sent a message in mid-October, asking if they planned on getting an influenza vaccination. Patients in loss or gain frame groups were sent up to 3 portal reminders (late October, November, and December, if no documented influenza vaccination in the EHR) about importance and safety of influenza vaccine.Main measuresReceipt of 1 influenza vaccine from 10/01/2019 to 03/31/2020.Key results196,486 patients (145,166 young adults, 29,795 older adults, 21,525 adults with diabetes) were randomized. Influenza vaccination rates were as follows: for young adults 36.8%, for older adults 55.6%, and for diabetics 60.6%. On unadjusted and adjusted (for age, gender, insurance, race, ethnicity, and prior influenza vaccine history) analyses, influenza vaccination rates were not statistically different for any study group versus control.ConclusionsPatient reminders sent by a health system's patient portal that were tailored to patient demographics (young adults, older adults, diabetes) and that incorporated two behavioral economic messaging strategies (pre-commitment and loss/gain framing) were not effective in raising influenza vaccination rates.Trial registrationThis trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04110314)

Effect of State Immunization Information System Based Reminder/Recall for Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial of Autodialer, Text, and Mailed Messages

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of different modalities of centralized reminder/recall (autodialer, text, mailed reminders) on increasing childhood influenza vaccination.Study designTwo simultaneous randomized clinical trials conducted from October 2017 to April 1, 2018, in New York State and Colorado. There were 61 931 children in New York (136 practices) and 23 845 children in Colorado (42 practices) who were randomized to different centralized reminder/recall modalities-4 arms in New York (autodialer, text, mailed, and no reminder control) and 3 arms in Colorado (autodialer, mailed, and no reminder control). The message content was similar across modalities. Up to 3 reminders were sent for intervention arms. The main outcome measure was receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine.ResultsIn New York, compared with the control arm (26.6%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates in the autodialer arm (28.0%) were 1.4 percentage points higher (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), but the rates for text (27.6%) and mail (26.8%) arms were not different from controls. In Colorado, compared with the control arm (29.9%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates for the autodialer (32.9%) and mail (31.5%) arms were 3.0 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12) and 1.6 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) higher, respectively. Compared with the control arm, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was $20 (New York) and$16 (Colorado) for autodialer messages.ConclusionsCentralized reminder/recall for childhood influenza vaccine was most effective via autodialer, less effective via mail, and not effective via text messages. The impact of each modality was modest. Compared with no reminders, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was also modest for autodialer messages.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03294473 and NCT03246100

Behavioral and Social Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination in the United States, August–November 2021

IntroductionCOVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and widely available, but many adults in the U.S. have not been vaccinated for COVID-19. This study examined the associations between behavioral and social drivers of vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the U.S. adults and their prevalence by region.MethodsA nationally representative sample of U.S. adults participated in a cross-sectional telephone survey in August-November 2021; the analysis was conducted in January 2022. Survey questions assessed self-reported COVID-19 vaccine initiation, demographics, and behavioral and social drivers of vaccination.ResultsAmong the 255,763 respondents, 76% received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine uptake was higher among respondents aged ≥75 years (94%), females (78%), and Asian non-Hispanic people (94%). The drivers of vaccination most strongly associated with uptake included higher anticipated regret from nonvaccination, risk perception, and confidence in vaccine safety and importance, followed by work- or school-related vaccination requirements, social norms, and provider recommendation (all p<0.05). The direction of association with uptake varied by reported level of difficulty in accessing vaccines. The prevalence of all of these behavioral and social drivers of vaccination was highest in the Northeast region and lowest in the Midwest and South.ConclusionsThis nationally representative survey found that COVID-19 vaccine uptake was most strongly associated with greater anticipated regret, risk perception, and confidence in vaccine safety and importance, followed by vaccination requirements and social norms. Interventions that leverage these social and behavioral drivers of vaccination have the potential to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and could be considered for other vaccine introductions